|
|
Posted by dorayme on 05/13/07 08:13
In article <4645e363$1_3@news.bluewin.ch>,
John Hosking <John@DELETE.Hosking.name.INVALID> wrote:
> El Kabong wrote:
> >
> > I'll work on the other stuff later, but can you tell me why changing the
> > DOCTYPE is a good idea? (I'm new to this "validation" stuff so I'm not
> > being
> > facetious.)
>
> See, e.g., http://hsivonen.iki.fi/doctype/ . The connection between
> doctype and validation is different from (and secondary to) the
> usefulness of avoiding quirks mode (by selecting a doctype).
And, may I say, El Kabong, you show some talent, certainly a firm
hand. Agree with all comments by others to date. You were asking
about the why of some code earlier. You will benefit from
approaching a page from the overall perspective of separating
style from content. In your HTML, try to lay it out in a logical
and meaningful manner with the thought that someone might just be
viewing it or hearing it with no styles, no colours. If it can be
useful in this situation, even though it is a less probable one,
you have achieved something significant. You have laid a
foundation for catering to all.
By crafting a stylesheet to make it look nice, fancy, whatever
you like, you then provide a further useful service to many if
not all people. It is also, in a more complicated case, a service
to yourself because you might later want to change the look
without having to pick over the html presentational bits and
pieces. This sort of thing comes into its own sitewise more than
pagewise. Small changes in a css sheet can have dramatic effects
on all the pages covered, whereas to achieve similar over a
number of pages otherwise means having to ferret out all the
styles scattered among all the different pages.
In this particular case you are constrained by using images that
function to display text. It is obvious why this is convenient
here. But ideally, you would replace even these and leave only
images that are simply either far too hard or impossible to
substitute with html text and css style. Ideally!
One advantage of using a strict doctype is that you are then
greatly encouraged to not use so much of the old presentational
html mark up like align="center". The idea of stict is that it is
a development of a higher standard whereas transitional is sort
of 'ok, you have old code and you want to improve, this will cut
you some slack".
Certainly not a good idea to ever display a W3C transitional
doctype congrats logo/link because though bikers will normally
not know about them, someone might give a rough translation and
you will be beaten to a pulp for being a wuss. With a strict
doctype, the translation will gain their respect and get you a
beer.
Then, of course, a severe beating for boasting with any logo. <g>
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|